There is no parity in College football

[scott715]

Maybe P5 teams should not be allowed to pay stipends to their players. That might move some recruits to choose another team.

[snoscythe]

Nick Saban can walk into a recruit's home and say "every single player I have recruited to Alabama who has come and stayed on the team through their senior season has won a National Championship".

[Mars]

I have no problem with making divisional changes, as long as each school gets to decide whether they can qualify or not, based on measurables, such as scholarship numbers, or average home attendance, not based on conference affiliation.

[snoscythe]

Just a practical note, if we start placing minimum financial requirements (e.g. breakeven, no state subsidies, must make money, etc.) we're inadvertently going to kill off the vast majority of football programs by killing their non-profit status which in turn would put a damper on large boosters and corporate partnerships that are built on tax-planning. Once they have to manage for a profit, it would reduce donations on one hand, and subject them to greater tax burdens on revenues on the other hand. You'd be killing a number of programs that currently turn a profit, and I wouldn't be surprised if BYU was among the schools that could no longer operate a football team under that rubric.

[Commoner]

Maybe P5 teams should not be allowed to pay stipends to their players. That might move some recruits to choose another team.

Allowed? They are the ones who pushed the stipend legislation through, once they were given autonomy.

They hold the high ground. The future of football will be what their 64 members decide.

[snoscythe]

BYU currently pays stipends to their players. $5000/academic year last I heard. It's among the highest in the country.

How's our recruiting going?

[KYCoug]

One other consideration, 10 years ago no one was afraid of Clemson. You generally get what you pay for though. Now all the top P5 teams pay their assistants more than a million a year. The Defensive Coordinator at LSU makes 2 million a year. If you want to compete at that level you have to pay at that level, have facilities at that level and then you can attract recruits at that level. It seems to me in past glory days the Y always brought 2 and 3 star kids in and they overachieved. Now we don't seem to be able to do that.
I'm hopeful though.

Go Cougs

L Hatton
Louisville, Ky

[CrimsonCoug]

One other thing to note is that parity (the subject of the OP) and a free market approach are two different things. No, I don't like the collusion and exlusicivity going on with the P5 right now, but I also don't want a forced parity either.

As an economist, it's also important to note that there is an important distinction between capitalism and a free market economy. As a gross oversimplification, Capitalism refers to who owns the factors of production (private entities rather than the state) whereas the free market refers to the rules of the economy by which the owners of all factors of production are able to allocate or deploy them. So it's possible to have a capitalist economy that is not competitive, as can happen in a fully laissez faire economy when monopolies and monopsonies arise (think of the robber barons), or when the state picks and promotes private winners (think of the current Chinese economy).

In a free market, the role of the state is to create conditions that allow for high levels of competition. Unlike laissez faire where the role of the state is limited to discouraging theft and providing public goods, the role of the state in a free market economy is to correct for market failures.

Because of the laissez faire approach of the state (or the NCAA if you like) towards the CFP, it has been able to act in a very real ways a capitalist monopoly and monopsony, actively thwarting a free market. And, ironically, among those providing labor to the monopsonist (the teams), the CFP runs much closer to the Chinese model of picking winners than to our American ideals or a market economy where everyone has equal opportunity.

It is the lack of that form of parity--equality of opportunity, rather than equality of outcomes--that concerns me the most. And in general equality of opportunity tends to lead to equality (or closing the gap) of outcomes.

[byufan4ever]

One other thing to note is that parity (the subject of the OP) and a free market approach are two different things. No, I don't like the collusion and exlusicivity going on with the P5 right now, but I also don't want a forced parity either.

As an economist, it's also important to note that there is an important distinction between capitalism and a free market economy. As a gross oversimplification, Capitalism refers to who owns the factors of production (private entities rather than the state) whereas the free market refers to the rules of the economy by which the owners of all factors of production are able to allocate or deploy them. So it's possible to have a capitalist economy that is not competitive, as can happen in a fully laissez faire economy when monopolies and monopsonies arise (think of the robber barons), or when the state picks and promotes private winners (think of the current Chinese economy).

In a free market, the role of the state is to create conditions that allow for high levels of competition. Unlike laissez faire where the role of the state is limited to discouraging theft and providing public goods, the role of the state in a free market economy is to correct for market failures.

Because of the laissez faire approach of the state (or the NCAA if you like) towards the CFP, it has been able to act in a very real ways a capitalist monopoly and monopsony, actively thwarting a free market. And, ironically, among those providing labor to the monopsonist (the teams), the CFP runs much closer to the Chinese model of picking winners than to our American ideals or a market economy where everyone has equal opportunity.

It is the lack of that form of parity--equality of opportunity, rather than equality of outcomes--that concerns me the most. And in general equality of opportunity tends to lead to equality (or closing the gap) of outcomes.

For Christmas someone gifted me the book "Free to Choose" by Milton Friedman. I haven't gotten very far but I like what I've read so far.

[Jarhead]

One other thing to note is that parity (the subject of the OP) and a free market approach are two different things. No, I don't like the collusion and exlusicivity going on with the P5 right now, but I also don't want a forced parity either.

As an economist, it's also important to note that there is an important distinction between capitalism and a free market economy. As a gross oversimplification, Capitalism refers to who owns the factors of production (private entities rather than the state) whereas the free market refers to the rules of the economy by which the owners of all factors of production are able to allocate or deploy them. So it's possible to have a capitalist economy that is not competitive, as can happen in a fully laissez faire economy when monopolies and monopsonies arise (think of the robber barons), or when the state picks and promotes private winners (think of the current Chinese economy).

In a free market, the role of the state is to create conditions that allow for high levels of competition. Unlike laissez faire where the role of the state is limited to discouraging theft and providing public goods, the role of the state in a free market economy is to correct for market failures.

Because of the laissez faire approach of the state (or the NCAA if you like) towards the CFP, it has been able to act in a very real ways a capitalist monopoly and monopsony, actively thwarting a free market. And, ironically, among those providing labor to the monopsonist (the teams), the CFP runs much closer to the Chinese model of picking winners than to our American ideals or a market economy where everyone has equal opportunity.

It is the lack of that form of parity--equality of opportunity, rather than equality of outcomes--that concerns me the most. And in general equality of opportunity tends to lead to equality (or closing the gap) of outcomes.

Thanks for posting this! I knew someone would understand much better than me. My posts were apparently inaccurate somewhat, but this is what I was trying to hint at. The ideals of the US have been based on a capatalistic free market which is intended to lead to good outcomes to those that apply themselves.

A lot of people have started to believe that the US = Capitalism = Rich protecting their riches by restricting the poor and that's fine. But the economic philospohy that our economy is supposed to be based off of is much different than that. Free market capitalism is not an economic philosphy based on greed, in my opinion.